Some idle thoughts concerning a new shield

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
09 March 2007 11:31
 

Joseph,

My bad.  I did mean pale.  Visually I like the way bend sinister divides the shield, but most importantly, I had asked earlier if I was correct in assuming that dexter chief is the most "honorable" position on a shield.  If it is, then the cross should go there (God shares first place with no one.)  A bend dexter would leave me, generally, with chief sinister and base dexter.  (Am I making sense here?)

 

As for the charge, I suppose a ruffed grouse (state bird) could hold a sprig of eastern hemlock, although if I went that way I might be inclined to use a sprig of mountain laurel instead (state flower).

 

Sorry about the badge.  Hope no one ran from the room in abject terror.  Just thinking out loud on that one.  On another thread I had started, we were tossing around ideas that would play on the name Henry.  Perhaps a badge could involve a female ruffed grouse ("hen") imposed upon a sheaf or spray of rye ("Hen-rye").  Still ruminating…

 

As a child growing up in Vandergrift, I was told (at one time or another) that "Kiskiminetas" meant all the things Father Guy mentions above.  I’m not sure anyone back home has a "favorite" meaning for the name.

 

And thanks for the heads up on Rietstap’s and Papaworth’s.

 
ESmith
 
Avatar
 
 
ESmith
Total Posts:  550
Joined  15-11-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 11:54
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

Per fess rayonny Azure two towers Argent, and Or a base wavy Azure.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Horatio86/FtherWilliams3.png

 

I don’t think I like the shield, the crest looks nice though.  That is just an olive wreath, I was fresh out of hemlock, which I guess is a good thing for all the Greek philosophers in the room.  And I changed the towers to a Castle of two towers… I think you can imagine the space between the towers being blank.

 

Pr. William,

There are several honorable points on a shield. One, called the ‘Honour Point’ is slightly above the center of the shield.  The chief (top of the shield) is also used for augmentation purposes, as is the canton (dexter chief corner).  Semy of a charge can also be considered ‘honorable’ or at least to emphasize a charge by repeating it ad nosium.  As with so many other things in heraldry, a charge can be considered ‘honored’ simply because the armiger says it is, sort of like "you might think this lion symbolizes courage but really it symbolizes harryness".  You could explain to people that you put the cross on the top/center/anywhere else because it was most important to you.

 

Hope that helps some.

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
09 March 2007 12:01
 

Everett,

May I ask what program you use for doing that?  And what associated programs already need to be in place on a computer for using it?  Is it a genuine heraldic program, or simply a "paintshop" type function?  Thanks!

 
ESmith
 
Avatar
 
 
ESmith
Total Posts:  550
Joined  15-11-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 12:04
 

FatherWilliam57 wrote:

Everett,

May I ask what program you use for doing that?  And what associated programs already need to be in place on a computer for using it?  Is it a genuine heraldic program, or simply a "paintshop" type function?  Thanks!


I use Adobe Photoshop with Armorial Gold’s, and a few other’s, clip art.

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
09 March 2007 12:09
 

Joseph:  The American custom back into the 18th century is not to bother with differencing—in fact, the Oxford Guide to Heraldry says it’s not even normally practiced in England these days. So it’s definitely optional. I think I would leave it up to the kids if they want to do it, but if it’s to be done, I agree putting a bordure around the arms instead of a cadency mark would be preferable.

Would this mean (in England in particular) that only the oldest son inherits his father’s shield and younger sons simply develop their own?  Since "family arms" (a la "bucket shops") are a no-no, I thought the "one man - one shield" rule was still in effect.  With no difference marks, 20 people could be using the exact same shield within 2-3 generations.  Or are we assuming there will be differences on other parts of the full achievement for each individual?  I admit I just finished reading Fox-Davies this week; however, we are in the U.S. and don’t have to be so "formal."  But wouldn’t this all become rather confusing down the road?  Maybe I’m missing something…

 
ESmith
 
Avatar
 
 
ESmith
Total Posts:  550
Joined  15-11-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 12:14
 

FatherWilliam57 wrote:

Would this mean (in England in particular) that only the oldest son inherits his father’s shield and younger sons simply develop their own?  Since "family arms" (a la "bucket shops") are a no-no, I thought the "one man - one shield" rule was still in effect.  With no difference marks, 20 people could be using the exact same shield within 2-3 generations.  Or are we assuming there will be differences on other parts of the full achievement for each individual?  I admit I just finished reading Fox-Davies this week; however, we are in the U.S. and don’t have to be so "formal."  But wouldn’t this all become rather confusing down the road?  Maybe I’m missing something…


A common practice on this forum (I can’t speak much beyond that) is to maintain the shield for all the descendants but to alter and/or create a new crest for each individual.  I do this, I think Denny does this, and a few others.  Here’s an example of My Granddad, my Dad, and me.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Horatio86/ThreeEverettswithCrestscopy.jpg

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 13:17
 

*edited by member*

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 March 2007 13:18
 

FatherWilliam57 wrote:

Would this mean (in England in particular) that only the oldest son inherits his father’s shield and younger sons simply develop their own? Since "family arms" (a la "bucket shops") are a no-no, I thought the "one man - one shield" rule was still in effect. With no difference marks, 20 people could be using the exact same shield within 2-3 generations. Or are we assuming there will be differences on other parts of the full achievement for each individual? I admit I just finished reading Fox-Davies this week; however, we are in the U.S. and don’t have to be so "formal." But wouldn’t this all become rather confusing down the road? Maybe I’m missing something…


Ah… I should have known this was coming from Fox-Davies.

 

The basic rule in England, as most everywhere else, is traditionally that all (legitimate, biological) sons inherit the father’s arms, without any further reference to "authority."

 

However, as explained by the early 17th century English legal authority, Sir Edward Coke, each son is supposed to make some minor change (on his own) out of respect to the eldest brother’s special status:

 

"Gentry and Armes is of the nature of Gavelkind; for they descend to all the sonnes, every sonne being a gentleman alike.  Which gentry and armes do not descend to all the brethren alone, but to all their posterity. But yet jure primogeniturae, the eldest alone shall beare as a badge of his

birthright, his father’s armes without any differences for that as Littleton saith, sectione 5 he is more worthy of his blood but all the younger brethren shall give several differences."

 

Now Fox-Davies turned this, along with the argument that a knight had to be identifiable by his shield, into a categorical requirement to keep differencing arms ad infinitum, so that no two men could bear the same arms.  But Fox-Davies, the quintessential lawyer, had this habit of turning principles that he happened to like into hard and fast rules, disregarding inconvenient historical evidence to the contrary—such as the fact that the Kings of Arms on several occasions granted identical arms to several brothers or even cousins, and routinely referred in official communications to the "arms of the family."  And if we think about the identifiability rationale, who would be able to differentiate on the field of battle between a knight bearing "Gules a pale Argent, in honor point a [tiny] crescent for difference" and his nephew, bearing "Gules a pale Argent, in honor point a martlet [equally tiny] charged with a [even tinier] mullet for difference"?  It just doesn’t stand up.

 

The Oxford Guide to Heraldry (written by two English officers of arms), while not officially dispensing with cadency, acknowledges that (a) Coke is the most recent source stating that differencing is obligatory, (b) the "rule" was never really strictly applied, and (c) it is really more of a rule of courtesy than a rule of law.  When the visitations were in full swing, the heralds would confirm a man in his family arms if he could prove descent (the standard of proof in those days being somewhat wobbly by modern standards), and then would add a cadency mark or other minor difference in the confirmation.  But the use of the undifferenced arms was never considered usurpation or treated as a violation of the law, as far as I can tell.  (At least, I don’t remember any cases in Squibb’s book on the Court of Chivalry in which anyone was tried for failure to difference for cadency.)

 

As to what is required in the United States, even if we suppose Coke to be binding for the English law of arms, and the English law of arms to be binding in America, look at his justification for differencing:  primogeniture.  The oldest son would get the estate (and incur the feudal tenurial obligations), therefore the oldest son should get the undifferenced arms.  But in this country, primogeniture was never the universal rule, even in colonial times (it never applied in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania, was abolished in New Hampshire and Connecticut before the Revolution, and didn’t apply to estates of Dutch origin in New York), and was abolished throughout the country before the end of the 18th century.  (It also was not in force in the Spanish or French territories that are now part of the USA.)  Accordingly, even the theoretical underpinning of the "rule" disappeared more than 200 years ago; it had been largely ignored in practice on this continent long before.

 

The sin of the "bucket shops" is not that they sell the arms of your family but that they sell the supposed arms of your name.  Some Smiths do in fact descend from a common ancestor named Smith who bore some particular coat of arms.  All his descendants in the male line—his family—are entitled to those arms, which they may difference for cadency or not.  But not all people named Smith are descended from this common ancestor, and those who are not do not have any right to his arms at all.  The bucket shops imply that they do (although, to avoid fraud claims, usually explain in the fine print that they don’t).

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 13:23
 

*edited by member*

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
09 March 2007 14:18
 

Joseph,

Just so you don’t lose all hope in my heraldic education, I should tell you that I have purchased nine heraldry books in the last two weeks (for under $40 total…we like eBay!).  Absolutely loved Peter Gwynn-Jones (The Art of Heraldry) and Hubert Allcock (Heraldic Design).  But you will be pleased to know (I hope) that I preferred Neubecker’s "A Guide to Heraldry" to Fox-Davies’ "Complete Guide"!  So, perhaps, there is hope for me yet!

 
ESmith
 
Avatar
 
 
ESmith
Total Posts:  550
Joined  15-11-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 14:18
 

Donnchadh wrote:

Everett, yes, I do that as well. smile

One note on the emblazonment and I could be totally off my rocker, as I am on vicodin after my surgery yesterday as well as being a little woozy form the vercid and general anesthesia, but I think that the castle in the rendition you did is just a castle, whereas two towers would be just them without the conjoining wall. Of course, I am doped up, so please forgive me if I am wrong. I will say that it looks really nice as is! Great blazon by Joe and great emblazonment by you.


You’re not going crazy, when I was putting the picture together the towers looked pretty bad so I used a castle.  I mentioned this in my explanation… hope you feel better soon.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 18:25
 

*edited by member*

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
09 March 2007 21:17
 

I would still be curious to see:

Azule, a pale double cotised between a Celtic cross dexter and castle sinister Argent.

 

Any sympathetic souls out there with adequate computer software?  Hint, hint!  :-D

 
ESmith
 
Avatar
 
 
ESmith
Total Posts:  550
Joined  15-11-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2007 22:33
 

FatherWilliam57 wrote:

I would still be curious to see:

Azule, a pale double cotised between a Celtic cross dexter and castle sinister Argent.

 

Any sympathetic souls out there with adequate computer software?  Hint, hint!  :-D


I’ll tell you right now, I doubt you’ll like this… a Pale double cottised would fill nearly half the full width of the shield, and then to put a wide charge like a castle to one side… it would look very cramped.  Also, the blazon you’ve put would better be written Azure, a pale double cottised between, in dexter, a Celtic cross and, in sinister, castle Argent..  The way you’ve got it means that the cross is facing dexter and the castle, again, facing sinister… which wouldn’t be possible with these particular charges…

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
10 March 2007 03:07
 

Thanks for the clarification on the blazon.  (Oh, these techincal details…but this is how we learn.)  I guess I was saying "castle" but envisioning "tower."  What would happen if the division remained a bend sinister wavy (without the cotise), and the shield was modified into a type with a broader base?  Would that work?

Azure, a bend sinister between a Celtic cross and a castle Argent.

 

Does that seem reasonable?

 

Of course, if the "tower" would get the point across, I suppose it could be:

 

Azure, a pale wavy between a Celtic cross and a tower Argent.

 

You’ve been doing this longer than I.  I await your valued opinion!